The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

[FCEGM]

I find it hard to understand people who refuse to do this or that thing because the pagans did it–I’m sure the pagan Romans wore shoes and clothes too! And Latin was definitely used in pagan rituals in old Rome, I guess all those classicists are going to Hell in a handbasket.

I hear you, T A. :yup: It has struck me that such people have a very weak faith which causes them to judge superficially in matters pertaining to the belief and practice of the Church. They do not have the gift of knowledge which allows them to see God at work in transforming all to His divine purpose for His greater glory. Seeing with human eyes, they live in fear and consider all created things as rivals, even enemies of God; seen with the eyes of faith, otoh, one sees that whatever is true, good and beautiful is meant to be conformed to Christ to be offered to the Father.

 

[CherokeeBrave]

A non answer. Explain the fact that St. Paul plainly says that anyone receiving unworthily becomes guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Show me where St. Paul is wrong here, because there is **no way ** that one can become guilty of a person’s body and blood by abusing a mere symbol. Post 20 shows the complete fallacy of that.

Deal with the scriptures Brave, or admit that you can’t answer the Word of God as it is plainly written. There is nothing figurative in any of the passages that I have cited. The only “symbolism” is within the carnal minds of those who chose to reject the plain truth of God’s Word.
Pax tecum,

exegete scripture with you. But that cannot be done successfully with someone not likeminded. You and I are not likeminded. The Bible admonishes that we should be. I will not accept your scriptural ‘proof’ of eucharist, and you will not accept my secular proof that it is not biblical.

The shed blood of Christ covers our sins, but it does not do so literally. The shed blood of Christ is not literally in the communion service, or you would see it, smell it, taste it.

Which is it?

The council of Trent (Sess. XIII, Can. Iv) by a special canon emphasized the fact that, after the Consecration Christ is truly present and, consequently, does not make His Presence dependent upon the act of eating or drinking. On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated hosts and Sacred particles that remain on the altar or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion. In the deposit of faith the Presence and the Permanence of Presence are so closely allied, that in the mind of the Church both continue on as an undivided whole. And rightly so; for just as Christ promised His Flesh and blood as meat and drink, i.e., as something permanent (cf John 6:50 sqq). . . . " [Catholic Encyclopedia: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist]

Which is it?

“The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, Page 347, #1377.]

Which is it?

The most that may be said is, that from the Eucharistic Body proceeds a miraculous sustaining power, which supports the appearances bereft of their natural substances and preserves them from collapse. [Catholic Encyclopedia: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist]

Which is it?

The Permanence of Presence, however, is limited to an interval of time of which the beginning is determined by the instant of Consecration and the end by the corruption of the Eucharistic Species. If the Host becomes moldy or the contents of the Chalice sour, Christ has discontinued His presence therein. [Catholic Encyclopedia: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist]

Imagine, Jesus becomes moldy.

 

[Nevim]

Only in this case Jesus says “This is my body…This is my blood…” not “My body is like this piece of bread” or “My body is like this wine.” There is no mistaking it is NOT to be assigned figurative status.

And if you were at Capernaum when Christ said to eat and gnaw him, what would have been the figurative interpretation at that time? For OT Jews, what did eating flesh and drinking blood mean?

No He held up the piece of Matzo and said “this is my body” and all of them there knew that He was using figurative language.

 

[jim1130]

No He held up the piece of Matzo and said “this is my body” and all of them there knew that He was using figurative language.

Repition for emphasis (Synoptic Gospels, John 6, and 1 Corinthians) that “This is…” says otherwise.

 

[Nevim]

I hear you, T A. :yup: It has struck me that such people have a very weak faith which causes them to judge superficially in matters pertaining to the belief and practice of the Church. They do not have the gift of knowledge which allows them to see God at work in transforming all to His divine purpose for His greater glory. Seeing with human eyes, they live in fear and consider all created things as rivals, even enemies of God; seen with the eyes of faith, otoh, one sees that whatever is true, good and beautiful is meant to be conformed to Christ to be offered to the Father.

Red Herring

 

[Nevim]

Repition for emphasis (Synoptic Gospels, John 6, and 1 Corinthians) that “This is…” says otherwise.

I gave the rule of Grammar, I gave the testamony of Scripture against eating blood. You all have refused the both, it’s your eternity…

 

[NotWorthy]

Red Herring

Is that what Jesus multiplied with the 5 loaves?!?

 

[jim1130]

Nevim:

The orginal text states no such thing as “the chalice of benediction” it states the cup of blessing–a clear indiction they where holding a Passover seder the “Cup of Blessing” is the third cup what is consumed in a Seder. Futhermore and still unanswered by anyone here is the FACT that it is against Scripture to eat Blood–bottom line. Futhermore if Christ taught this it would be against the Torah Deut 13:1 -5 did you read it ? I doubt it.

Nevim:

No He held up the piece of Matzo and said “this is my body” and all of them there knew that He was using figurative language.

Nevim:

I gave the rule of Grammar, I gave the testamony of Scripture against eating blood. You all have refused the both, it’s your eternity.

Truthfully, then, what does it matter to you? Obviously, Christ violated the Torah so it does not matter what he says or does, even though Christ declared ALL foods clean (Mark 7:17-19 and re-emphasized by St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 8:7-9) and cured on the Sabbath (Mark 3.1-6; Luke 6: 6-11; Luke 13:10-15; Luke 14:1-6).

 

[NotWorthy]

I gave the rule of Grammar, I gave the testamony of Scripture against eating blood. You all have refused the both, it’s your eternity…

You gave a law from the Mosaic Covenant. I’m under the impression that we are no longer under the constraints of the Mosaic Covenant.

You gave a rule of Grammar. Let’s cover another rule of Grammar. How about the use of the word “Trago” in John 6. If the Jews were to take Jesus figuratively when He said you must eat (Trago) my flesh, then this meant that the Jews were to hate and revile Jesus in order to gain eternal life.

 

[Nevim]

Is that what Jesus multiplied with the 5 loaves?!?

No it is reponse to the obivious lack of the ability to properly address my points, and that includes yourself. All of you are just kidding yourselves if you think differently. And I suppose you and the other guy left CARM because you could not handle the opposition there either and here you feel safe, but never challenged. Have a nice night.

 

[Nevim]

You gave a law from the Mosaic Covenant. I’m under the impression that we are no longer under the constraints of the Mosaic Covenant.

You gave a rule of Grammar. Let’s cover another rule of Grammar. How about the use of the word “Trago” in John 6. If the Jews were to take Jesus figuratively when He said you must eat (Trago) my flesh, then this meant that the Jews were to hate and revile Jesus in order to gain eternal life.

Yes I gave the rule of Grammar for a metaphor, you cannot accept that when it comes to the Scripture, but in everyday life ya do. I’ts not my problem it’s yours.

Lets do this Ok. A. It is against the Torah to eat any blood.
Lev 3:17.

B. If a person taught anything against the Torah HE was a false prophet. Duet 13: 1-5 therefore the Catholic Communion cannot be verified with Scripture.
Bottom line.

 

[NotWorthy]

No it is reponse to the obivious lack of the ability to properly address my points, and that includes yourself. All of you are just kidding yourselves if you think differently. And I suppose you and the other guy left CARM because you could not handle the opposition there either and here you feel safe, but never challenged. Have a nice night.

No, I just felt I would leave you a Red Herring, Nevim.

The reason I left CARM is that I felt absolutely no Christian Charity from people there. Not so much by you. You were just passionate in your responses, kind of like here. I remember you used the word “Sheesh” too often, when you didn’t like the level of my responses, but that’s OK. I’ve never claimed to be an expert, just someone who absolutely loves Christ and the Church He left.

But people like Robert H-something, St. Hilarious, and several others over there just felt that CARM was a great site to tell me how fast I’m going to hell, simply because I’m an idol worshipping biscuit eater. The mods over there actually jump in and pile on.

I’ve looked through the Bible and I never saw Jesus trying to convert others with this tactic, so I didn’t think they were trying to be very Christ-like.

I may go back there in the future, but posting 280 times in about one week (while working full time) convinced me that I need to back off on a couple of my addictions. End of story.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes I gave the rule of Grammar for a metaphor, you cannot accept that when it comes to the Scripture, but in everyday life ya do. I’ts not my problem it’s yours.

Lets do this Ok. A. It is against the Torah to eat any blood.
Lev 3:17.

B. If a person taught anything against the Torah HE was a false prophet. Duet 13: 1-5 therefore the Catholic Communion cannot be verified with Scripture.
Bottom line.

“Jesus is a false prophet?!?” For He taught that you must “Drink my blood”…

How do you address that “Trago”, when used figuratively, means to hate and revile?

 

[NotWorthy]

By the way, isn’t Leviticus chapter 3 addressed to the Levitical priesthood and how they handle sacrificial offerings?

 

[Church_Militant]

Does that mean we can’t use the Bible, either???

Aw Man! That’s just not fair!
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Church_Militant]

eisegesis?

exegesis
ex‧e‧ge‧sis  /ˌɛksɪˈdʒisɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ek-si-jee-sis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ses /-siz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation-seez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.
critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible.

 

[Pax]

Yes I gave the rule of Grammar for a metaphor, you cannot accept that when it comes to the Scripture, but in everyday life ya do. I’ts not my problem it’s yours.

Lets do this Ok. A. It is against the Torah to eat any blood.
Lev 3:17.

B. If a person taught anything against the Torah HE was a false prophet. Duet 13: 1-5 therefore the Catholic Communion cannot be verified with Scripture.
Bottom line.

Give us a break…Jesus said and did many things that upset people who would try to use the OT against him and his teachings. I suppose we are also to reject the revelation to Peter concerning eating things that were “taught” in the OT Law to be “unclean.”(see Acts 10:10-30)

Your argument has absolutely no support. Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” (Jn 6:53-58)

Everything Jesus says becomes the bottom line of our faith. Speaking of faith and salvation gives us another example of another break from the Old Law. It is not the law that saves us as taught in the OT but the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross. The good news is a new covenant and your OT prohibition against drinking blood simply has no application to the new covenant Eucharist.

 

[Nevim]

“Jesus is a false prophet?!?” For He taught that you must “Drink my blood”…[/Qutoe].

But that’s not what He taught. Obiviously you did not read Duet. 13:1-5.

NotWorthy:

How do you address that “Trago”, when used figuratively, means to hate and revile?

When you have address my points I’ll be glad to address yours.

 

[Nevim]

Give us a break…Jesus said and did many things that upset people who would try to use the OT against him and his teachings. I suppose we are also to reject the revelation to Peter concerning eating things that were “taught” in the OT Law to be “unclean.”(see Acts 10:10-30)

Believe me I am giving you a break. Too bad people don’t read this portion of Scripture too well Protestants included!
Since it is against the Torah to teach something other then what God’s commandments are there must be a problem with the interpertation of these verses !

Nowhere can we find on of the 12 Apostles supporting the abolishment of a single command of the Torah. That is powerful testimony to the way they understood, first hand, the teaching of Y’shua.
10:11 He saw heaven opened and an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down to earth by its four corners. 10:12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and wild birds. 10:13 Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!” 10:14 But Peter said, “Certainly not, Lord, for I have never eaten anything defiled and ritually unclean!” 10:15 The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What Yahweh has made clean, you must not consider ritually unclean.
Yahweh gave Peter a vision and told him not to call unclean what Yahweh had made clean. Peter was to stop following Torah and have pork chops for dinner, so can we. That is the way this vision is wrongly interpreted by most Christians; from the pre-conceived doctrine that the Torah was abolished.
Let’s take a closer look at the passage firstly, the context. A Roman named Cornelius’ had an Angel visit him and tell him to summon Peter; that Yahweh had heard Cornelius’ prayers, and seen his many good deeds. So Cornelius sent some of his servants to Joppa where he had been told by the Angel he would find Peter. Before they arrived, Peter was on the roof, it was lunch time, and he was hungry. Then he saw this vision of the animals.
What was Yahweh trying to tell Peter? Peter says in verse 14 that he had never eaten any thing unclean, so apparently he didn’t understand that Y’shua had done away with the Torah, because he was still following it many years later. What Peter needed to learn to stop following was not the Torah but the traditions of the elders. Back in the story of Mark 7 and Matthew 15, Matthew tells us that it was Peter who asked Y’shua “ what does the parable mean?” The problem is that there is was no parable; this is why Y’shua asked if they were so ignorant; this is why He then had to repeat what He said to them in very graphic terms . You see, Peter liked traditions. When Y’shua spoke against the traditions of the elders, Peter thought it must be a parable. It wasn’t. Y’shua was trying to get him to realize that he need to follow the Torah, not traditions. Peter was given this vision for the same reason; he was about to be asked to break another tradition of me; he was about to visit a Gentile
10:16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into heaven.

 

[Nevim]

10:17 Now while Peter was puzzling over what the vision he had seen could signify, the men sent by Cornelius had learned where Simon’s house was and approached the gate. 10:18 They called out to ask if Simon, known as Peter, was staying there as a guest. 10:19 While Peter was still thinking seriously about the vision, the Ruach said to him, “Look! Three men are looking for you. 10:20 But get up, go down, and accompany them without hesitation, because I have sent them.” 10:21 So Peter went down to the men and said, “Here I am, the person you’re looking for. Why have you come?” 10:22 They said, “Cornelius the centurion, a righteous and Elohim fearing man, well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to summon you to his house and to hear a message from you.” 10:23 So Peter invited them in and entertained them as guests.
If the vision had been plainly “everything is OK to eat”, why would Peter be puzzling and thinking seriously about what it could mean? He knew that Yahweh would never tell him to disobey Torah. What exactly the voice say? “What Yahweh has ‘KATHARIZO’ (Strongs # 169) don’t you call” ‘KOINOO (#2840), You will recognize the first word the ‘cleansing’ the other, KOINOO, ritual impurity or being “common, defiled”, was also used back in Mark 7 and Matthew 15, when Y’shua said “not what goes in that defiles, but what comes out defiles…”
The concept of ‘AKATHARTOS’ (#169), which is the opposite of KATHARIZO, is the “unclean” referred to in the Torah prohibitions against certain meats (Leviticus 11). Only clean meats could possibly become ‘KOINOS’ (#2839), or “common.” The vision included clean and unclean animals, but the clean ones had, to Peter, obviously been made common (or defiled). The voice had not said to call AKATHARTOS, “unclean” things “clean”, rather to not call things KATHARIZO, cleaned things KOINOO common”!
So what could be that Yahweh had cleansed but Peter was still calling common ? This is the question that perplexed Peter. He knew it could not be the unclean animals in the vision, Y’shua had never told him to anything about Torah ending, in fact, He said it was eternal…what could it be…knock, knock. The “ the law of man” that Peter was about to be told to break was the not associating with the Gentiles. Yahweh had cleansed and redeemed them, but Peter was still keeping separate. Had Yahweh not shown Peter this to Peter through the vision, he probably would not have gone to see Cornelius. Peter had his answer, and later said: Acts 10:28 He said to them, “You know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile, yet God has shown me that I should call no person defiled or ritually unclean. 10:29 Therefore when you sent for me, I came without any objection. Now may I ask why you sent for me?”
10:34 Then Peter started speaking: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism in dealing with people, 10:35 but in every nation the person who fears him and does what is right is welcomed before him.
Peter told them the story of Y’shua’s life, death and resurrection. While he was doing this, they were filled with the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) ( they obviously believed and were saved because of this belief) and then were baptized in water. Upon returning to Jerusalem, Peter was in the hot seat for his actions:
11:1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God